The fact that the LGBT community CHOSE that word to identify themselves is a little beyond me. It seems almost self-deprecating.

I think they took it as reclaiming or something. It was used as an insult first, so they just used it as an identification. Like lesbians using dyke or gays using fag. Wasn't calling someone black instead of colored an insult in the past?

I'm gonna have a hard time not reading pomosexual as an attraction to apples.

lol

For a while I couldn't think "pansexual" without thinking about attraction to pans.

The fact that the LGBT community CHOSE that word to identify themselves is a little beyond me. It seems almost self-deprecating.

I think they took it as reclaiming or something. It was used as an insult first, so they just used it as an identification. Like lesbians using dyke or gays using fag. Wasn't calling someone black instead of colored an insult in the past?

An insult? Really? Hm...you know, it would make more sense for it to be GBPA (gay-bi-pan-ace). And I suppose you could throw a Q on there if so desired.

I am a proud soldier in the MCRmy.I brought my bullets and took their love.I gave three cheers for sweet revenge.I marched faithfully in the black parade.I am not afraid to keep on living, and they'll never take me alive.

The fact that the LGBT community CHOSE that word to identify themselves is a little beyond me. It seems almost self-deprecating.

I think they took it as reclaiming or something. It was used as an insult first, so they just used it as an identification. Like lesbians using dyke or gays using fag. Wasn't calling someone black instead of colored an insult in the past?

An insult? Really? Hm...you know, it would make more sense for it to be GBPA (gay-bi-pan-ace). And I suppose you could throw a Q on there if so desired.

They could do with some vowels...

Hello and greetings, I'm from the Department of Tautology Department. How are you today this afternoon?

How about we just start calling it the SVA (Sexual Variation Alliance) and be done with it?

Because if we're the SVA then we technically have to include heterosexuals as well on the grounds that they are still a variation? I have nothing againts heteros, I'm just saying that SVA would really be an inclusion of everyone, which I'm good with, but makes no sense in an other-than-mainstream sense.

Wikipedia Definition: Since its emergence in the English language in the 16th Century (related to the German quer, meaning "across, at right angle, diagonally or transverse"), queer has generally meant "strange," "unusual," or "out of alignment." It might refer to something suspicious or "not quite right," or to a person with mild derangement or who exhibits socially inappropriate behavior.

The fact that the LGBT community CHOSE that word to identify themselves is a little beyond me. It seems almost self-deprecating.

In the late 80s/early 90s, Gays in the US started using the phrase:

"We're herewe're queerget used to it."

The idea was throwing it back in the straights' faces, especially around the issue of AIDS. AIDS advocacy really got active then.

Is that really an orientation though? I know it's an attitude toward sex but does it have any relation to sexual attraction? The way I see it, a person of any sexual orientation can be anti-sexual. Just like a person of any orientation, including asexual, can be sex-positive.

I have to disagree with you there. After my last book, I understood why two of my best characters are antisexual. It would seem like an insult to them if it isn't an orientation.

I have to disagree with you there. After my last book, I understood why two of my best characters are antisexual. It would seem like an insult to them if it isn't an orientation.

Please explain? I mean, I have many characters with different opinions, likes, dislikes, thoughts, beliefs, and orientations. They may have excellent reasons for any of those, and any of those may be essential core pieces of who they are. That doesn't mean they all get lumped as part of their "orientation", even if it has something to do with sex.

How about we just start calling it the SVA (Sexual Variation Alliance) and be done with it?

Because if we're the SVA then we technically have to include heterosexuals as well on the grounds that they are still a variation? I have nothing againts heteros, I'm just saying that SVA would really be an inclusion of everyone, which I'm good with, but makes no sense in an other-than-mainstream sense.

That's the point. It's supposed to be an alliance, not a clique. It's about people working together to understand and help each other. Including all sexual orientations will lead to cooperation between more people.

GoAllyGoGo: The prostituteEras: I know I swear your like my e-momEras: It a long story but I dedcided to give him a chance.Otter Spirit: .... Is anyone in here actually related to somebody else in here?

Is an as3xual someone who doesn't realize that sex is spelled with an 'e'?

[GoAllyGoGo] 9:16 pm: What can I say? I'm a giver, not a taker.GoAllyGoGo would spank Eras, but she's pretty sure that's illegal.

Proverbs 21:19 Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and ill-tempered wife.See God DOES have a sense of humor.

I have to disagree with you there. After my last book, I understood why two of my best characters are antisexual. It would seem like an insult to them if it isn't an orientation.

Please explain? I mean, I have many characters with different opinions, likes, dislikes, thoughts, beliefs, and orientations. They may have excellent reasons for any of those, and any of those may be essential core pieces of who they are. That doesn't mean they all get lumped as part of their "orientation", even if it has something to do with sex.

In order to explain my reasons, a little background is in order. For my two trigger happy commandos, their reasons are very similar. My top sniper/PR commander got badly injured in a fight against commies. Some people tried to use that as an excuse to get her to settle down. In response, she got sterilized and let her sniper traits filter into her personal life. Her younger sister, a team leader/communications specialist/training commander, basically got her right leg blown off in combat. After a major fight with her parents that ended up escalating to involve the Attorney General and the Navy's JAG. She got sterilized two days later and let her own combat training influence her personal life.

Since I write military fiction, I find it easier to categorize my shooters in many different ways. For sexual orientation, it fits well that two of my youngest senior commanders have views along the lines of my own, despite theirs being way more radical. These sisters will do absolutely anything to defend their way of lives, including winning a bunch of money off their colleagues in high-stakes poker. They wear their antisexual views like a medal because those two literally were awarded medals for that reason. They also enjoy joking around with their married teammates all the time regarding marital status to help relieve stress and have some fun at work.

I don't think insulting people who don't exist is the best reason I've ever heard for classifying something as an orientation. I also don't see what that synopsis has to do with antisexuality, it just seems like 2 women who really didn't want children.

I don't think insulting people who don't exist is the best reason I've ever heard for classifying something as an orientation. I also don't see what that synopsis has to do with antisexuality, it just seems like 2 women who really didn't want children.

The views of these trigger-happy females has changed some of my views. With those two, things are not as simple as not wanting kids. I could post their bios online with extra info to help explain why they are the way they are.

I don't think insulting people who don't exist is the best reason I've ever heard for classifying something as an orientation. I also don't see what that synopsis has to do with antisexuality, it just seems like 2 women who really didn't want children.

The views of these trigger-happy females has changed some of my views. With those two, things are not as simple as not wanting kids. I could post their bios online with extra info to help explain why they are the way they are.

.........perhaps we're working under different definitions here. At AVEN, "antisexual" is used to describe the attitude of hating sexuality in general, not just for yourself. Antisexuals are opposed philosophically to sex, and that goes beyond merely refusing to participate it. Antisexualism ties in closely with the belief that asexuals are naturally "superior" to sexuals - and hence that sexuals are inherantly inferior, a point of view that AVEN does not support.

Can you define how you're using the term, to avoid any misunderstandings? Thanks.

I guess I've been influenced by my two commandos a bit. My definition is basically the same one you find on Wikipedia, without the occasional edits made by militant types. The two shooters of mine are slightly more radical since they're trained to fight.

I guess I've been influenced by my two commandos a bit. My definition is basically the same one you find on Wikipedia, without the occasional edits made by militant types. The two shooters of mine are slightly more radical since they're trained to fight.

Antisexualism is a term that describes either,

* the views of someone who is antagonistic towards sexuality; * or a movement against all forms of sexuality.

People involved in, and proponents of, the movement may be described as "antisexual". In pre-modern times, antisexualism was usually expressed in religious terms, but it now also occurs as a secular social reform agenda. Most antisexual people believe that sexuality is a kind of addiction resulting in both physical and social effects, that it disrupts relationships, and causes people to lie and cheat to achieve the pleasure of sexual gratification. An antisexual person who refuses to have sex is considered to be a celibate or an antisexual celibate, and is not necessarily asexual. Some antisexual people believe sexuality to be the cause of many of the world's problems.

The Wikipedia and AVEN definitions seem to be pretty much the same. For both, antisexuals are against sex for everyone (except for reproduction - sometimes), which is a philosophical viewpoint and thus part of a different scale to sexual orientations. Also, so far you haven't said anything which shows your characters to be antisexual; what you have said only indicates they don't want to marry/have children (In fact nothing you said prevents them from being sexuals and having one-night stands and the like).

Those two are antisexual all right, but it's a bit hard to explain exactly why. One of them is a sniper and is cold and emotionless when it comes to relationships. The other is a close-quarters specialist and became antisexual after losing her leg in combat, being fitted with a prosthetic, and dealing with people using her injury to try to force her to start a family when she didn't want to. Both had hysterectomies voluntarily. One of the side effects of the procedure is a vastly reduced or non-existant sex drive. For those two, they lost it entirely. Once I publish one of my new books that gives bios of all my senior characters, it will be easier to help people understand why my shooters are the way they are. Despite their harsh views, they will respect and support the marital views of their comrades-in-arms. I'm still working on their bios and plan to post them here first in a speak preview of that new book. That'll help my case.

They could very well be antisexual, although it still seems to be unrelated to their orientation.They will of course lack a sex drive after a hysterectomy, and since they both elected to have them, they may well be asexual.They also seem aromantic, the sniper by nature and the other apparently (at least partly) due to peer pressure.

The question of whether they are antisexual is more what they think of other people having sex, rather than what they do.

Those two are antisexual all right. They are strongly opposed to other people having sex, but their views are restricted by their work. As commandos, they follow a code of honor. Part of that code says they have to respect and defend the views of their comrades-in-arms, regardless of whether they agree with it or not. You're wrong about the sniper's siter and peer pressure. She didn't understand her feelings towards relationships and suppressed it to focus on her job. Losing her leg and having a major fight with her parents on that issue focused her feelings and allowed her to know how she truly felt. I might post segments of book six regarding this along with the bios as well. Regarding the aromantic label, it may actually stick, but I've never thought about things that way.

Ultimately there's such a vast spectrum when it comes to sexuality that pinning things down can be hard.

A lot of people don't easily fit into one box either. Human beings are just complicated.

But it's good to have different options for people to use to define themselves.

On the subject of autosexuality there are a number of AVENites who are asexuals with a sex drive who might fall into wikipedia's definition of autosexuality but as far as I know not one does preferring to stick to asexual.

For a while I couldn't think "pansexual" without thinking about attraction to pans.

I get the pan joke a lot when I tell folks that I'm pansexual. I should start carrying around a small pan. Hmmm. Smack folks mebbe? *CLANG*

lol YES YOU SHOULD. There is something hysterical about getting smacked with a frying pan.

I am a proud soldier in the MCRmy.I brought my bullets and took their love.I gave three cheers for sweet revenge.I marched faithfully in the black parade.I am not afraid to keep on living, and they'll never take me alive.

Hmmm . . . I wonder if there's a sexuality that is based on feeling the sensual attraction of kissing, cuddling and hugging in a romantic way, but not intent on sexual intercourse. I'd call it the second base sexuality.

pomosexual (post-modern + sexual) = Is not a sexual orientation, but is a label for those who feel their sexuality is undefined, or if they reject sexuality labels.

allosexual = People not on the asexual spectrum; alternate term for 'sexual'.

These terms might not have been known to the asexual community at the time. I don't even know if 'allosexual' existed as a term yet!

I should also mention that 'antisexual' is not a sexual orientation, and is one of the trickiest sexuality labels. It can refer to 2 different things (Against sexuality as a whole? Or is it against themselves having sex so they give it all up for life?). This is still obscure, and was unknown here at the time this thread was made, but if someone lists antisexual specifically as their sexuality, I can tell they mean the latter (which for all intents and purposes is a specific variant of what you might consider 'celibacy', but they don't identify as celibate). Those 2 things aren't mutually-exclusive, but it's possible to have the latter without the former.

The closest thing I can think of to your second question is sensual attraction itself, which isn't always linked to sexual things. Have you seen this thread: http://www.asexualit...-experience-it/

★★Resources and Survey Director of the Project Team★★ (PT also stands for "Party Time"! )

★Outside of Sexuality: I'm the admin of this boardfor people who don't want sex, including the sex-repulsed, the averse, and the voluntarily celibate! Now with a main page in progress, and looking for ideas!